The Chicago Community Networks study approaches the notion of power in a network in two ways:

• At the level of the organization: the study considers how central (or important) an organization is in the network. This concept of power is known as the “centrality” of a group, with greater centrality being potentially associated with more power.
• At the network level: the study considers the distribution of power throughout a network of organizations as a whole. For example: is there only one organization that is central to the network, with the rest being relatively peripheral? Just a few at the center? Or is power more evenly distributed throughout the network? This systems-focused approach to understanding power is known as “centralization.”

To illustrate how network-level power can be distributed in different ways, consider the two Chicago neighborhoods of Little Village and Austin. In the area of public policy and organizing, Austin is a community where power and influence is concentrated among very few organizations. In Little Village, power and influence is more evenly distributed among different groups.

Researchers have found that the concentration of power in a network can influence the ways that community collaborations operate.

Community initiatives often require collaborations among multiple groups. But who makes decisions within the collective? How is the need for efficiency balanced against the need for consensus? What builds trust, especially when conflict or disagreement emerges?

Related to these questions, policymakers have considered whether there is greater value in having a single group coordinate local efforts or in a more collaborative approach where a formal or informal “board” makes decisions more collectively. The former approach may promote efficiency, but can also concentrate power into a single entity. The latter may promote consensus, but may be less efficient, potentially leading to frustration and mistrust down the road.

Public management research has found that networks with a single (or limited number) of “brokers” who coordinate work may be more effective than networks with multiple “brokers.” This greater effectiveness may arise because a “hub-and-spoke” arrangement, where the “hub” coordinates activities of the “spokes,” is more efficient.

In contrast, MDRC’s work in the Chicago Community Networks study has found that some “hub-and-spoke” network dynamics may not always serve community collaborations as well as other kinds of configurations, as described in Section 4.

The Chicago Community Networks study has found that power is concentrated differently across the nine study neighborhoods. These differences appear to be associated with differences in neighborhood political and organizational cultures.

The figures below describe the different overall levels of power concentration in neighborhoods as a whole, as revealed in network-level centralization scores.

Overview

The previous section described the concentration of power in community networks, focusing on one particular type of power: the predominance of brokers, or entities that act as a bridge between actors that would otherwise be disconnected.

This section introduces another kind of power in community network structures.

These more nuanced characterizations of power can lead to a deeper understanding of community dynamics, as revealed in the case studies that follow.

Community-School Ties in Chicago

The last several years have been turbulent for Chicago schools and often for community-school relations. Recent issues include a brief teacher’s strike in 2012, the board of education’s vote to close 47 schools in 2013, disputes about the expansion of charter schools, and a nearly half-billion-dollar school budget deficit in 2017.

The actions of groups in Chicago Southwest provide an example of one neighborhood's response to these challenges.

Conclusion

Findings from the Chicago Community Networks study show how the concentration of power in networks can influence how well neighborhoods come together to implement community projects and mobilize for policy change. In particular, this feature has noted:

• How well-knit ties among well-connected groups can help execute effective community partnerships. In Chicago Southwest, a high concentration of ties appeared to be associated with the successful implementation of many kinds of school improvement projects.
• How the inclusive actions of well-positioned brokers can foster broad-based community engagement with public policy. These brokers are able to connect otherwise disparate elements of the community to each other and to powerful elected officials and public partners.

A print report to be published in late 2017 will explore these themes in more detail. In the meantime, the next feature in this web series will explore the comprehensiveness of community ties.

Back to Top ↑